Salmond's brief speech managed to include a few historical significant phrases:

"community of the realm" - medieval term developed, ironically for Salmond, in England. Used first in Scotland in correspondence with England during the succession problems after 1286 to make it clear to the English that the plurality of the Scottish people were involved in the decision making processes ocurring in the absence of a monarch. The term was used by Robert I to lend legitimacy to his regime after his usurpation. The term then came to represent a politically powerfully body from which consent was required to be given in order to change fundamentally the size, shape and integrity of the realm.

"Self-evident truth" - well hello Mr. President. 1776 and all that.

And the link between the two: "declaration"

Various scholars have tried with little success to suggest that the letter known as the "Declaration of Arbroath" influenced the writing of the "Declaration of Independence". The two are, however, linked in such writings and the news media's coverage of such. Along with stuff like tartan day - April 6 - in yankdom falling not by accident on the date of issue of Arbroath.

Today the YES Scotland campaign launched a declaration of its own.

Mucho symbolism.

Not much concrete, the only thing said wich one could say we can take as a definite in an independent Scotland, from what was said, is a determination to do without nukes.

But then this is natural. An independent Scotland should be as blank a page as possible. A few self-evident truths ought to do it. If this debate affords significant time and energy to discussions of, for example, what corporation tax might be in Scotland the debate is missing the point.

This should be about debating whether a Scottish state should be re-created in which stuff like corporation tax can be debated and altered according to a democratic process. Talking about levels of corporation tax in a possibly independent country is putting cart before horse.

Attempting to get a majority of Scots to sign up to an independent country that is built on a foundation heavily influenced by the political preferences of a section of the political community is a fools errand.

"Here's a country: it's democratic, it has a body of law that has developed over a millenium. Go and make of it what you will." That's about the only argument that can work. I think.

If the majority think more can be made of Scotland within the UK than has been hitherto and could be if she were independent then that's that.

_____________________________

"Aberdonians, and with some degree of purpose and right on their side, have absolute contempt for Glasgow. There is a side of Aberdonians who, let's be absolutely honest about this, feel so superior to Glasgow that you can measure it by the yard."

But then this is natural. An independent Scotland should be as blank a page as possible.

I think you've set out a few fair points but the problem is always going to be this. It simply can't be where money and an economy is involved. Where what happens depends on negotiations of extracting cash from a bigger organisation. Only then would anyone have an idea of whether an independent Scotland is financially viable, not before.

No-one goes into a room to discuss hiving off a bit of a business without a fully formed business plan covering finance, future and survival in detail. Surely a country, and the lives of so many people, deserves no less than a business buy-out?

"Aberdonians, and with some degree of purpose and right on their side, have absolute contempt for Glasgow. There is a side of Aberdonians who, let's be absolutely honest about this, feel so superior to Glasgow that you can measure it by the yard."

It will be interesting to see how the Euro-crisis plays out and how this affects the debate on Scottish independence (I have seen very little of this side of the debate). I was under the impression that the SNP and an independent Scotland wanted to become a full member of the EU and adopt the Euro (I've taken that from Wikipedia, yes I know that is lazy research on my part ). But if Greece leave and Spain/Italy/Portugal etc find themselves in more trouble I doubt Germany (sorry the EU ) would be willing to accept new members or an expansion of the Euro anytime soon.

But then this is natural. An independent Scotland should be as blank a page as possible.

I think you've set out a few fair points but the problem is always going to be this. It simply can't be where money and an economy is involved. Where what happens depends on negotiations of extracting cash from a bigger organisation. Only then would anyone have an idea of whether an independent Scotland is financially viable, not before.

No-one goes into a room to discuss hiving off a bit of a business without a fully formed business plan covering finance, future and survival in detail. Surely a country, and the lives of so many people, deserves no less than a business buy-out?

I didn't say a completely blank page.

I think there should be a fair distribution of assets and liabilities. Though I am loathe to talk in such terms. I'd rather view the UK through the metaphor of marriage than a business merger. It's not just about money, though money is undoubtedly an important issue.

"Fair" is no doubt a problem. However, I don't think it's a surmountable one. If everyone involved behaves in a responsible and grown up manner. I think that's possible.

Scottish taxes have bought what they have bought. Scotland should be required to share the UK debt. Scotland's territorial integrity should be respected.

I'd like to think that the divvying up of resources could be as apolitical as possible. It won't be completely apolitical. Obviously. But it needn't be completely political either. IMO it would be irresponsible to make it so.

The policy of the UK government towards the Euro, the EC changes according to circumstance and which party is in government. I don't think it's justifiable to define a nation's policy toward such things and so constrain future governments regardless of circumstance.

Certainly some of the unknowns that exist now must be made known and some others must be narrowed to knowable options. Some will remain unknown, necessarily so. The management of this process is vital to the debate. It will be tricky to do.

It is of course impossible that this debate be open and fair minded on the part of all involved. Humans being humans. I just hope the picture isn't so skewed come voting day that the process is rendered worthless.

_____________________________

"Aberdonians, and with some degree of purpose and right on their side, have absolute contempt for Glasgow. There is a side of Aberdonians who, let's be absolutely honest about this, feel so superior to Glasgow that you can measure it by the yard."

It will be interesting to see how the Euro-crisis plays out and how this affects the debate on Scottish independence (I have seen very little of this side of the debate). I was under the impression that the SNP and an independent Scotland wanted to become a full member of the EU and adopt the Euro (I've taken that from Wikipedia, yes I know that is lazy research on my part ). But if Greece leave and Spain/Italy/Portugal etc find themselves in more trouble I doubt Germany (sorry the EU ) would be willing to accept new members or an expansion of the Euro anytime soon.

I think the SNP's goal is to be in the EU but to retain Sterling.

This is part of the problem. I don't think the SNP's goals should be synonomus with what an independent Scotland would be.

If the debate is driven by the SNP using their ideas of what Scotland should be then it's bound to fail. The SNP do not represent the totality of support for Scottish indepndence.

The YES campaign has to separate itself from the SNP. Just as the NO campaign has to separate itself from political parties.

_____________________________

"Aberdonians, and with some degree of purpose and right on their side, have absolute contempt for Glasgow. There is a side of Aberdonians who, let's be absolutely honest about this, feel so superior to Glasgow that you can measure it by the yard."

Far too early to be launching this. The White Paper on Independence is not going to be published until November 2013, and then we have another year until the actual vote. What are we going to talk about in the interim? Without some basic document to work from we can expect 18 months of white noise.

On another note - the consultaton on the referendum gained 21,000 responses. Impressive...until you note that the same sex marriage consulation attracted 65,000 responses. Just to give a measure of interest in this issue at the moment.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

It will be interesting to see how the Euro-crisis plays out and how this affects the debate on Scottish independence (I have seen very little of this side of the debate). I was under the impression that the SNP and an independent Scotland wanted to become a full member of the EU and adopt the Euro (I've taken that from Wikipedia, yes I know that is lazy research on my part ). But if Greece leave and Spain/Italy/Portugal etc find themselves in more trouble I doubt Germany (sorry the EU ) would be willing to accept new members or an expansion of the Euro anytime soon.

I think the SNP's goal is to be in the EU but to retain Sterling.

This is part of the problem. I don't think the SNP's goals should be synonomus with what an independent Scotland would be.

If the debate is driven by the SNP using their ideas of what Scotland should be then it's bound to fail. The SNP do not represent the totality of support for Scottish indepndence.

The YES campaign has to separate itself from the SNP. Just as the NO campaign has to separate itself from political parties.

Here is the question

Would an independent Scotland have to rejoin the EU and if so, would it have to adopt the Euro.

That isn't asking for parties to give a policy - but to let people know what would happen if we became independent and yet desired to join the EU. We need that answered - and it is a apolitical question.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

Anyway's imho the yes vote will fail. It will be a massive waste of time and funds and when it does the public will turn against Salmond for turning Scot against Scot and running the country into the ground with his ridiculous agenda. The SNP will be voted out shortly after in a landslide and will almost certainly never get elected again. So ultimately I'm all for the referendum, if it means the SNP get fucked then bring it on.

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts And I looked and behold, a pale horse And his name that sat on him was Death And Hell followed with him.

It will be interesting to see how the Euro-crisis plays out and how this affects the debate on Scottish independence (I have seen very little of this side of the debate). I was under the impression that the SNP and an independent Scotland wanted to become a full member of the EU and adopt the Euro (I've taken that from Wikipedia, yes I know that is lazy research on my part ). But if Greece leave and Spain/Italy/Portugal etc find themselves in more trouble I doubt Germany (sorry the EU ) would be willing to accept new members or an expansion of the Euro anytime soon.

I think the SNP's goal is to be in the EU but to retain Sterling.

This is part of the problem. I don't think the SNP's goals should be synonomus with what an independent Scotland would be.

If the debate is driven by the SNP using their ideas of what Scotland should be then it's bound to fail. The SNP do not represent the totality of support for Scottish indepndence.

The YES campaign has to separate itself from the SNP. Just as the NO campaign has to separate itself from political parties.

Here is the question

Would an independent Scotland have to rejoin the EU and if so, would it have to adopt the Euro.

That isn't asking for parties to give a policy - but to let people know what would happen if we became independent and yet desired to join the EU. We need that answered - and it is a apolitical question.

You assume independence means we leave the EU. That question has not been answered. It needs answered.

I absolutely agree that obligations need laid out and explained.

I can't for the life of me see how voting for independence would oblige us to join the Euro though.

The laying out of options is essential and can be done apolitically. The clarifaction of a legal situation such as the current status of Scotland with regard to the EU and its legal position on independence can be apolitical.

Following a clarification of the extant situation and the situation immediately upon independence, the decision to rejoin/exit the EU and the answers to subsequent questions resulting from such a decision is and are political. These should be the responsibility of the elected government not dictated to them by the result of a referendum on independence.

_____________________________

"Aberdonians, and with some degree of purpose and right on their side, have absolute contempt for Glasgow. There is a side of Aberdonians who, let's be absolutely honest about this, feel so superior to Glasgow that you can measure it by the yard."

Far too early to be launching this. The White Paper on Independence is not going to be published until November 2013, and then we have another year until the actual vote. What are we going to talk about in the interim? Without some basic document to work from we can expect 18 months of white noise.

Interesting debate on BBC Scotland last night, though I only managed to see bits of it due to my husband's incessant flicking through the channels.

What I did see showed Sturgeon really struggling to answer basic questions - re the EU, euro - apparently the SNP have never contacted the European Commission to clarify or inquire about an independent Scotland's position within Europe. But a bunch of former European Court judges and former senior officials in the Commission have said we could join the EU but wouldn't have to use the Euro.

So that's good, a mate of her's that used to work there said 'yeah, that'd be fine'.

Could we maybe speak to someone who works there currently to double check, cause, with all the issues with Greece and Portugal, Spain and Italy things may have changed since her 'pals' gave their view.

Interesting debate on BBC Scotland last night, though I only managed to see bits of it due to my husband's incessant flicking through the channels.

What I did see showed Sturgeon really struggling to answer basic questions - re the EU, euro - apparently the SNP have never contacted the European Commission to clarify or inquire about an independent Scotland's position within Europe. But a bunch of former European Court judges and former senior officials in the Commission have said we could join the EU but wouldn't have to use the Euro.

So that's good, a mate of her's that used to work there said 'yeah, that'd be fine'.

Could we maybe speak to someone who works there currently to double check, cause, with all the issues with Greece and Portugal, Spain and Italy things may have changed since her 'pals' gave their view.

My experience of the Scottish Government and Europe is that they generally don't ask the right questions, interpret the rules wrongly on a regular basis and lose our cash as a result. European funding rules for various funds are pretty specific - not that SG seems to realise that.

I'm kinda hoping we do go independent just to see what happens, to be honest. If the country goes tits up I can always emigrate.

Alright for some....

That does raise another interesting issue. If Scotland does go independent what sort of agreement will both governments come to regarding migration- ie those people who don't want to live in an independent Scotland and move to England/Wales/NI or vice versa.

not only the migration issue (which would be covered by the Schengen agreement IIRC, if they join the EU) but also if an independent Scotland keeps free university education for its citizens, and joins the EU - English students (as well as welsh and NI students) will have to be given free tuition too.

I also have issues with "independent". It implies a current state of dependence. Which, to me, implies a paternal relationship rather than a union.

Self-determination?

Really it'll be a different form of inter-dependence.

The border thing will surely only be a problem if poorly handled by idiots. I mean it's not like Hadrian's wall is getting rebuilt or some kind ridiculous cold war type situation which the Daily Mail would no doubt dub the "Tartan Curtain." The border between RoI and NI isn't exactly Checkpoint Charlie.

_____________________________

"Aberdonians, and with some degree of purpose and right on their side, have absolute contempt for Glasgow. There is a side of Aberdonians who, let's be absolutely honest about this, feel so superior to Glasgow that you can measure it by the yard."

Secession is. I think, the term being reached for here and if the vote goes through it is something that will be being forced on, at the very least, a significant proportion of the voters.

Democracy, dear fellow.

Forced. Christ.

Compared to the shotgun wedding that kicked this all off.

_____________________________

"Aberdonians, and with some degree of purpose and right on their side, have absolute contempt for Glasgow. There is a side of Aberdonians who, let's be absolutely honest about this, feel so superior to Glasgow that you can measure it by the yard."

not only the migration issue (which would be covered by the Schengen agreement IIRC, if they join the EU) but also if an independent Scotland keeps free university education for its citizens, and joins the EU - English students (as well as welsh and NI students) will have to be given free tuition too.

I was thinking more permanent migration pre-secession rather than being refused entry post-secession (which both countries would not be able to do if Scotland were to join the EU). Good point about the tuition fees- though it could potentially be applied to all EU students

Secession is. I think, the term being reached for here and if the vote goes through it is something that will be being forced on, at the very least, a significant proportion of the voters.

Democracy, dear fellow.

Forced. Christ.

Compared to the shotgun wedding that kicked this all off.

We already have democracy - we all get one vote each election. It's just a small part of the UK calling games abogey because they got their votes and others in the UK didn't necessarily agree.

It may be 'cos it's early but I struggle to comprehend that post. Ironic? Probably.

SNP were elected making it plain they'd hold a referendum. It's been established and accepted they have the right to hold one and that it will be, de facto at least, binding. Our lovely democracy. Our occasionally changing democracy. The form of democracy isn't sacred. One of the perks of democracy.

If you're suggesting that the rest of the UK should have a say on whether Scotland leaves or not then that can sod off. If a nation seeks to leave the EU should the voters throughout the EU have a say?

I've been "forced" to be part of the UK since I read and understood the script. I've been "forced" to live under UK governments I haven't voted for my entire adult life. My childhood was a "forced" existence under a Tory government that no-one in even my extended family (who have revealed to me their choice) wished to elect.

To paraphrase my least favourite West Winger: In a democracy oftentimes the other side wins.

Them's the breaks. It's bloody annoying. Forced is hardly fair though. We get a say. It's not tyrannical.

_____________________________

"Aberdonians, and with some degree of purpose and right on their side, have absolute contempt for Glasgow. There is a side of Aberdonians who, let's be absolutely honest about this, feel so superior to Glasgow that you can measure it by the yard."

UK government, UK vote - one vote each. What the SNP have always played on is some ridiculous notion of a distant parliament ruling our affairs - but it's a parliament we've voted in. It's the same anti- attitude used to gain votes elsewhere - we get it in local council elections because where we live is geographically distant from council headquarters and that's always used to create aggro - looook, they spend money up there and we get nothing down here bleat bleat bleat. All nonsense politicking.

And yes - braveheart bullshit manipulation and apathy may force a secession on people who don't want it. I'll bet the participation requirement is disgustingly low as well.

UK government, UK vote - one vote each. What the SNP have always played on is some ridiculous notion of a distant parliament ruling our affairs - but it's a parliament we've voted in. It's the same anti- attitude used to gain votes elsewhere - we get it in local council elections because where we live is geographically distant from council headquarters and that's always used to create aggro - looook, they spend money up there and we get nothing down here bleat bleat bleat. All nonsense politicking.

And yes - braveheart bullshit manipulation and apathy may force a secession on people who don't want it. I'll bet the participation requirement is disgustingly low as well.

Wilful misunderstanding? Fine. If you think what you wrote was clear that's fine.

We don't elect the government. We elect our MP. The queen asks the leader of the party with the most seats to form a government. The leader need not be elected. Ministers need not be elected. Just saying.

We also have a Scottish parliament. A government was elected by an overwhelming majority with a mandate to hold a referendum on independence.

Braveheart manipulation? Are you serious? You think that sort of kack will convince a majority of voters? Even if it does, tough sh!t. If anti-independence - rather than pro-unionist - manipulations should scare the bejeeezus out of enough muppets (if there are that many muppets in Scotland) then that'd be as funny and depressing as if a couple of million people ticked the YES box while bellowing "Freedom!".

Apathy? Turnout requirement? Piss-poor turnout hasn't nullified council elections. If the turnout is low then the turnout is low. If the YES vote wins in such a situation then those who voted no will be in the minority. In a democracy that means a loss. And vice versa.

Using "force" in the context of the outcome of democratic vote is frankly ridiculous.

For the sake of my sanity I really hope there emerges a clear separation between an independent Scotland and the SNP's idea of an indpendent Scotland. That the referendum is to bring about the former rather than the latter. That because the bulk of the YES campaign are SNP members does not mean that is an SNP campaign.

It will get beyond tiresome if what should be a nation for the entirety of Scottish people to shape is continually attempted to be turned into an entity shaped by the SNP's idea of Scotland and/or what NO campaigners see as an SNP idea of Scotland.

If I end up on the losing side I won't be wittering about being forced to live in a polity.

_____________________________

"Aberdonians, and with some degree of purpose and right on their side, have absolute contempt for Glasgow. There is a side of Aberdonians who, let's be absolutely honest about this, feel so superior to Glasgow that you can measure it by the yard."

This is going to be the next two years of debate. I still don't understand why it needs to be 2014. We got devolution sorted in a matter of months.

Devolution, in one form or other, had been discussed since the '50s. The referendum in the '70s was a bit of a mess. It's not like the idea was fleshed out in months. It had gone through at least 3 generations of tweaking and 3 "national debates" before it happened.

Plus, by '98/'99 a YES vote was a stick on. The NO campaign as I remember it was a decimated Tory party against a Labour juggernaut aided ably by the SNP and Lib Dems. It's not as if there was much in the way of the YES campaign going about things how they pleased.

This will likely be a tighter vote with much more wrangling over process.

It's not like the devolution settlement didn't allow a fair bit of wiggle room. The Parliament controls a pretty different mix of stuff now than it did. Plus we have the Scotland Bill progressing to tweak it some more. And there was the safety net - no need to address the trickier stuff like Pound, Defence, EU. They could even ignore relevant questions and plough on... West Lothian Question anyone?

This one needs to address the tricky ones.

It's a long time. I think it'll need the time to limit unknowns and get past a sensationalised circus.

As a notion independence isn't new, obviously. As a practical reality it is. Rather make damn sure it's done properly rather than the AV debacle.

_____________________________

"Aberdonians, and with some degree of purpose and right on their side, have absolute contempt for Glasgow. There is a side of Aberdonians who, let's be absolutely honest about this, feel so superior to Glasgow that you can measure it by the yard."

Two and a half years is a long long time for this. People are getting worn out by it already. And as you say, the concept is hardly new to people - this debate has been going on for decades now. Yet somehow, we need two plus years for people to make up their mind. That would be fine if there was anything of substance happening - but as I said before, we have to wait until November 2013 to get to the White Paper.

What is happening in between that time? Not much - vauge arguments, silly point scoring and all the rest of it.

Maybe months is too short a time, but is it really outwith the compentence of the Yes campagin to articulate a vision of independence, for the Union campagin to defend the UK and for the people of Scotland to make up thier mind, within a year? The concept that somehow we need two and a half years to make up our mind about this is feels a little patronising.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

If you think 2 years of debate pre-referendum is a long time, just wait until you see how long it takes after the referendum to generate any change should the Yes vote take the day! For a start, the sheer amount of primary and subordinate legislation that will be required to transfer all the functions and powers from UK to Scotland could tie up the Assembly for years. Plus, what happens with the existing statute anyway? Will the various Acts and SI's that came from them that have been written using existing devolved powers have to be revisited as well? Then there are the huge amounts of national policies and strategies that, while not requiring new laws, will need to be made specific to Scotland. What about the NHS? What about transfer or disposal of UK Government-owned assets? That's even before you consider the implications of applying for EU membership.

_____________________________

WWLD?

Every time we think we have measured our capacity to meet a challenge, we look up and we're reminded that that capacity may well be limitless

I left in love, in laughter, and in truth and wherever truth, love and laughter abide, I am there in spirit.